Re: [PATCH] fexecve

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:31:29 -0500
Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:27:27PM +0000, Julian Yon wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:45:02 +0000
> > David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
> >
> > > You don't need the executable image inside the chroot.
> >
> > I don't believe that's intended to be possible, and if it is, I'm
> > not sure it's a gain.
>
> I actually think it might be, if it didn't run the risk of blowing up
> code that wasn't written to expect it.
As I've clearly missed it, which text in the spec suggests that? I
don't see chroot mentioned anywhere.
> If we're going to commit this syscall at all, I think it should be
> accompanied by a new socket option for unix domain sockets, which
> defaults to "off", but if explicitly set to "on", allows file
> descriptors passed across the socket to be used for exec.
Or just flag all descriptors passed over sockets as non-executable,
i.e. implement the call but prevent that particular pattern.
Julian
--
3072D/F3A66B3A Julian Yon (2012 General Use) <pgp.2012%jry.me@localhost>